Gie

Don't get me wrong,Riri Riza's 2005 biopic, Gie, is well done for what it is.

The movie encompasses the teenage and early adulthood years of Soe Hok Gie, and does so competently enough.

The trouble with Gie is that it's just about two and a half hours long and plods its way through Gie's thoughts and experiences, based on his journal, in a rather uninteresting way.

After having read a few other reviews from other users about the film, it appears Riza also took various liberties with fictionalizing his life, but not in a way that really made the film more interesting (save for adding the character Han to the picture).

What we get is a movie that solemnly trots through Gie's experiences during upheaval and political unrest taking shape in Indonesia during a battle of Democracy versus "guided" Democracy (i.e,. Communism).

The actual upheaval is rarely depicted and the effects of the political change are mostly glossed over in the film itself. We only get Gie's interpretations of these events rather than a cinematic macrocosm of their effects.

In short, despite the film being rather lengthy and covering various events, it doesn't quite elaborate on the societal toll quite like other similar films in the sub-genre, such as The Year of Living Dangerously or The Motorcycle Diaries, both of which managed to capture more of the cinematic idealism of the story's portrayals rather than maintaining a one-note depiction of events.

Even still, Nicholas Saputra's portrayal of Gie is wonderfully refrained. A lot of his inner turmoil and angst are withheld from any outbursts or external shouting matches. Instead Saputra was directed to emote through facial expressions and the matching inner dialogue that the audience experiences through the journal's narration.

I feel like in the hands of a more audacious filmmaker Gie could have been much better than what it is. Even still, if you're unfamiliar with Indonesia or its political history, this is a fascinating film that gives you a small slice of what one of the more turbulent and unpredictable moments in Indonesia's recent political history was like.

this movie was one of my highly anticipated movie, but the result turns me down..basically, the plot is some what boring because of the inconstancy story narration makin its very confusing for me to follow the flow of the main character GIE, at the opening of this movie i already cant understand the whereabouts of gie, so pluralistic but cover almost nothing of gies unique personal background, the question in multidimensional opening scene that it has to cover the "who-why" aspect not just the who part and the why part, which to avoid an misinterpretation.

riri riza should have done more research on the issue of gie especially on hes mind set,in my perspective he himself doesn't understand GIE stand point way of mind where logically how can you expect hem to let the viewer know gie if he himself doesn't understand gie, which in the end he makes the looks of GIE struggle and stand point looks completely naive.

i understand the task in directing GIE is a hard task you have to know and understand philosophy to create the perfect composition of GIE, not just plainly adapting it from hes book which by the way is only a simple diary , plain adaptation of gie is which i think creates the roots of the storyline-disorder of this movie.

the poor artistic value and the unmet tone color of the movie ,even more makes me unattached to the movie , a more effort should have been done in both of the department, but overall i do appreciate riri riza and the gang for the moral effort of even have the boldness to picture a story like this ,salute......

"How a person masters his fate is more important than what his fate is".

-wilhem van Humboldt

Eventually, Gie was released. The latest production of Indonesian potential director, Riri Riza. Prior to the release, its pre-distribution strategy "Gie Road to Campus" had successfully created public opinion and awareness about the film.

In fact, during the first 15 minutes, the opening scenes failed to introduce the film to its audience, triggered by abundant amount of scenes on young Gie. As a result, these excessive scenes only had weakened 'the introduction' itself. Quite regrettably though, the story failed to focus since its first minutes.

The screenplay, written by Riza himself, left several chances to sharpen its angles. The director should not have depended heavily on its plotting structure that was already too linear. The emotional development, seemed uniform at almost all scenes and sequences. While motion picture consisted of such a complex dramaturgy, which meant emotional fluctuation of the story should be assured, the climax of Gie's anger, concern, idealism, and restlessness was nowhere to be felt.

It was not known in which drawer the director kept his film's climax. Apparently Riza was trapped by collecting piece by piece of Soe Hok Gie's masterpieces of thoughts and ideas. Yet, the director did not arrange them into a whole unity as a cinematography piece of work that obviously demanded entertainment values.

In addition, the narration technique was too weary to follow. Gie was preaching instead of talking. It was true, a personality like Soe Hok Gie by no means wrote his diary in such way as that of 'Boy' wrote his diary (Catatan si Boy/Boy's Diary, was the country's box office film in the 1990s). But again, this challenge should have been cracked in advance.

Yes, at the ending Riza had inserted narration to finally inform his audience that Soe Hok Gie was also an ordinary human being, who could be in love as well. Through the narration of his letter to Ira (Sita RSD), it was known that he too, could fall into such magnificent feeling of love. Sadly, the scenes depicting humanly sides of Gie were only found at the last minutes. Because from the beginning, Soe Hok Gie's was illustrated as rigid, idealistic and nearly utopian character.

The dramaturgy imperfection apparently had not been covered by strengthen other elements.

Characterization and relationship between characters were repeatedly neglected. Many characters and scenes occurred without sufficient explanation, or some hints to explain them.

What relationship Gie and Arief Budiman had? Why Father (Robbie Tumewu) was always quiet and looked sad? What kind of traumatic experiences he went through? Why Mother still could shop with bag full when others had to queue up for fuel? Why Gie was offered a prostitute? Why Ira, an activist and outspoken demonstrant, was just speechless when a man cheated on her? Who was Herman Lantang? Why for fighting, Gie was always protected by friends? Plenty characters were introduced, plenty scenes were performed, but plenty more empty spaces remained without fullfiling explanation.

However, Nicholas Saputra who played the lead role as adult Soe Hok Gie, had radiantly showed his exceptional acting talent. Plus his nearly perfect adaptation to his character. But again, linear plotting made Soe Hok Gie as student activist, lecturer, intimidation victim, or a man in love, occurred almost without different pulses.

This film could have been rescued by beautiful and accurate cinematography. Having Yudi Datau as the Director of Photography, however, it rarely depicted beautiful and impressive shots. Bear in mind, the demonstration scenes on the streets were potentially exploitable. These scenes should have been occupied by colossal and unforgettable shots, although idea of fists in close up was already powerful. However, up to the end of the movie, numerous scenes that were supposed to be dramatic fell flat on the camera.

It was true, the attempt to depict Jakarta in its 50s and 60s deserved appreciation. However, Iri Supit's effort as the Art Director was surprisingly not that tremendous. Jakarta just looked gloomy and filthy. Gie's books were as worn out as the wall in his house. Supit also used the same type of fonts on every board and sign.

However, what more urgent was, the failure to snatch the changing of sequences. Particularly from Gie as a student to the sequence of him being a lecturer, due to the artistic decision to provide similar wardrobe and hairstyle. Abruptly, during the ending scenes, Gie appeared wearing dark red shirt and modern jeans just like a cover boy model.

Despite all the restlessness, Riza and his team deserved appreciation and salute, for their bravery to dig down into the national dark history. The history, no matter dark or shiny, for long time seemed to be the government's property only.

Amongst increasing numbers of films produced and small numbers of quality ones, no doubt glorious expectation was addressed to this Miles production. Quite understandable, indeed, since it based on a true story of one of many unsung heroes. This time a bright student whose 'rebellious' thoughts had smashed the Old Order tyrant and in turn, smacked the New Order regime. Thus, for this decision alone, Riza and Mira Lesmana the producer deserved double thumb up.

Besides, Indonesian moviegoers had been hunger to watch films with accountable cinematographic qualities. They had been starving to have national films to be proud of. Although in this case, the Gie's cinematography achievement was not yet that satisfactory.

Along with the release of Gie, this country also released one of its duties, in order to pass on its great struggles to its young generations. From a person, who had left golden trail in this country's history to freedom and democracy. From Gie, from a promising filmmaker, Riri Riza. (nenen)

The first thing in my mind after watching this movie was INTERPRETATION IS LEGAL!!

If you found this movie was disappointed then the diary which this movie was based on, was also disappointed since it only had fragment of events instead of Soe Hok Gie's mind. The director has tried to add some fictional character (at least 3) to dramatize the story but the result was not as good as I expected.

Removing three girls and adding two fictional girls in the name of the romance won't get any praise from me. When (if you read the diary) the real Gie was a platonist and he couldn't tell anyone, even him self, whether he loved one or more of those three girls, in the movie, Gie were able to determine he loved one of those two fictional girls.

Adding 'Chin Han' in the movie could be a good decision. Chin Han was representation of grass-root people, especially they who were actually blind in politic world but naively support a party. If only Riri Riza stopped after the scene when Chin Han was kidnapped in the dawn of Soeharto's era, this movie would not be a tendentious movie.

Removing the detail of the scene when Gie met Soekarno, especially the dialog, was the part which really disappointed me. Instead of showing how Gie accused Soekarno as immoral president (as he described in his diary), Riri Riza presented a story of a too-large-jacket which worn by Gie in Istana Presiden (President's Palace). Was Riri afraid of Soekarno's supporter? Whatever the reason is, the scene was disappointed, just as "Soekarno met Marhaen" scene in Yayasan Anak Bangsa's Soekarno which was released three years before.

Gie was shown as most-perfect man in this movie and nobody else in the movie as perfect as he was. He had respect to woman. He was an idealist. But in reality, he was just a naive (and some times naughty) young lad. He watched the porn movie (he admitted himself in the diary). He had a serious discussion with Ong Hok Kam (also bright student) who unfortunately, Riza reduce his name to "one of Gie's friend".

The movie version of Gie wasn't a real Gie.. Well, at least, it didn't close to my interpretation of Gie. However, as I said in the beginning, "interpretation is legal"

"Gie" is a movie based on the true story of the young Indonesian student activist Soe Hok Gie (1942-1969). He was a vocal, idealistic, often angry voice criticizing the government of Soekarno in the 1960's. The movie follows the life of Gie from childhood, showing the influences that shaped his uncompromising character. His early days as a schoolboy already shows signs of an unyielding will, especially in the face of unjust authority. Gie kept a diary of his thoughts and opinions, which forms the backbone of this film. He was a voracious reader, and was especially attracted to the existentialist thinking of Albert Camus. He was also a prodigious and articulate writer, penning countless critiques of the government, both as a student and later as a lecturer at the prestigious University of Indonesia. His diary is full of musings on different aspects of life. He led student anti-government rallies. Yet at heart he is a patriot, ultimately concerned with the well being of Indonesia and its poorest citizens. His untimely death at 26 due to accidental poisoning by noxious fumes from the Semeru mountain in Java ended a life of prodigious output. The movie does not reveal merely the political aspect of his life, but also poetry, love, and his passionate dedication to a self-examined life. At almost three hours long, it does not feel dull and at the end the viewer is cinematic ally satisfied. It reminds me of the intensely emotional dramas of Martin Scorsese, in particular the recent "Aviator". In technical respects the movie does not quite reach those heights, but it has the same intimate personal feel. You know from watching this film that the Director is passionate about the material. The cinematography is gorgeous, especially in the outdoor and mountain scenes. It is not perfect, some scenes feel a bit long, and some of the acting is uneven, but on the whole it is highly recommended, especially for young Indonesians striving for a sense of national identity and purpose in their lives.